Mumbai, February 27, 2024 – The Designated Court under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (MPID) Act, City Civil & Sessions Court, Mumbai, has rejected the bail applications of Raju Shankar Panchal, Mangala Raju Panchal, and Meenakshi ORG Manisha Suresh Pawar, accused in an arson and criminal intimidation case. Judge Aditee Uday Kadam, presiding over Court Room No. 7, denied the bail applications (Bail Application No. 403 of 2024), citing the premature stage of the investigation and the seriousness of the allegations.

The accused were arrested in connection with C.R. No. 24 of 2024, registered at Kanjur Marg Police Station, for offenses under sections 436 (mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy house, etc.), 336 (act endangering life or personal safety of others), 506 (criminal intimidation) read with 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code¹ (IPC).

The Allegations and FIR:

According to the prosecution, the complainant had purchased a hut from Raju Shankar Panchal in 2014 for ₹7,00,000. For the past month, the accused had been pressuring the complainant to vacate the hut, abusing and assaulting her. On February 6, 2024, at around 3:00 AM, the complainant discovered her hut on fire. When she sought help from neighbors, the accused allegedly threatened to set their houses on fire as well.

Defense Arguments:

The accused, through their advocate Rao Ranjeet Shripat, argued that there was a previous property dispute between the parties and that the allegations were baseless. They claimed there were no eyewitnesses to the incident, that they were arrested on February 6, 2024, and that no recoveries were made from them. They also highlighted that two of the accused were women.

Prosecution’s Objections:

The prosecution, represented by SPP Seema Deshpande, opposed the bail applications. They argued that the accused had a tendency to commit such offenses, that they used to allot huts to needy persons and then force them to vacate after taking money, and that there were non-cognizable (NC) offenses registered against them. They stated that witness statements supported the complainant’s case and that the investigation was at a premature stage.

Court’s Analysis and Decision:

Judge Kadam, after reviewing the record and hearing arguments, made the following observations:

• Specific Allegations: The court noted the specific allegations in the report regarding harassment and arson.
• Government Land: The court acknowledged the prosecution’s claim that the huts were on government land and that the accused had no legitimate claim to them.
• Prima Facie Evidence: The court found prima facie evidence of serious offenses committed by the accused.
• Witness Statements: The court noted that witness statements supported the complainant’s case.
• Premature Stage of Investigation: The court emphasized that the investigation was at a premature stage, and recoveries and discoveries were yet to be made.

Judge Kadam concluded that the bail applications did not deserve consideration at that stage and rejected them.

Significance of the Order:

This order highlights the court’s emphasis on:

• Seriousness of Allegations: The court considered the seriousness of the allegations, including arson and criminal intimidation.
• Premature Stage of Investigation: The court prioritized the completion of the investigation, including recoveries and discoveries.
• Witness Statements: The court considered the supporting witness statements.
• Potential for Further Offenses: The court considered the accused’s alleged tendency to commit similar offenses.

This ruling underscores the court’s cautious approach in granting bail in cases involving serious offenses, particularly when the investigation is ongoing and there is strong prima facie evidence against the accused.